Has anyone read "His Broken Body" Healing the schism between RC and EO.

[NMHS]

Has anyone read this book written by Laruent Cleenwerck?  I am currently reading it and to my very limited knowledge of history it seems very unbiased.  Thanks

 

[Irish Hermit]

Has anyone read this book written by Laruent Cleenwerck?  I am currently reading it and to my very limited knowledge of history it seems very unbiased.  Thanks

I can't find reviews on any Orthodox sites.  Is it a new publication? Maybe the book has not yet caught the attention of the Orthodox?

 

[Fabio Leite]

It's always refreshing when people confess their true belief in the defeat of Christ, the failure of His promises and their self-perception as healers of God so clearly as in the title of this book.

 

[Matrona]

Has anyone read this book written by Laruent Cleenwerck?  I am currently reading it and to my very limited knowledge of history it seems very unbiased.  Thanks

Unbiased?  The title is outright blasphemy.

 

[Fabio Leite]

The book has been reviewd in another topic:

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,23968.0.html

 

[Fabio Leite]

The book has been reviewd in another topic:

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,23968.0.html

Not really. Sorry.

 

[NMHS]

Whoa, I was thinking this might have been a decent book to read and since I their isn't much review on this I wanted to ask on this site.  So as I said in my original post I have a limited knowledge and I thought it appeared to be unbiased and it appears that may not be so.  Please explain to me why you have the opinions that you do.  I would definatley like to know more.  I thought this book was pro-orthodox? 

here are some reviews of the book
http://www.amazon.com/His-Broken-Body-Understanding-Catholic/dp/0615183611

 

[Fabio Leite]

Whoa, I was thinking this might have been a decent book to read and since I their isn't much review on this I wanted to ask on this site.  So as I said in my original post I have a limited knowledge and I thought it appeared to be unbiased and it appears that may not be so.  Please explain to me why you have the opinions that you do.  I would definatley like to know more.  I thought this book was pro-orthodox? 

here are some reviews of the book
http://www.amazon.com/His-Broken-Body-Understanding-Catholic/dp/0615183611

He talks of the church "as hologram". And I thought this was a novel idea. There is really nothing new under the sun.

The strong reactions are due to the title only, at least from my part, since I haven't read it.

The title states that the Body of Christ is broken. This goes against Christs promises that his Church would never be deafeated, it goes against OT prophecies that the body of the Messiah would not be broken, goes against the confession of faith that the Church is One (ecumenists and protestants have to relativize "one" to include almost every confession). All this implies that it us, mortal sinners who will heal the body of Christ and not the opposite, which is, to put it in simple words, Satanic pride.

 

[Iconodule]

Parts of the book are available on Google books. I haven't really read it, but what I've seen seems a little more nuanced than the problematic title would suggest. By the way, Fr. Laurent is also the editor for the "Eastern Orthodox Bible."

 

[theistgal]

Unbiased?  The title is outright blasphemy.

How so?  Assuming one believes:

a)  the Church is the Body of Christ,

b)  the Schism was the fault of both East and West, and

c)  some form of the Branch Theory (i.e. both churches are still part of the original Body in some way),

it doesn't seem blasphemous.  (I'm not saying I believe all/any of these things, though I might  , but just pointing out, it makes sense in that context.)

 

[Fabio Leite]

b)  the Schism was the fault of both East and West, and

I think it's not at all about whose fault it was, but about the right belief about Christ and what He came to do.

Let's suppose it was entirely the Church's fault that the Romans defected, because of lack of help with the barbarians. We could and should apologize for that, although I think that the West has come to a point where it thinks the abuse it suffered is not an abuse at all but it's very birth.

Yet, we would have to say something on the line: "We are sorry we let you down with those pesky Franks and other barbarians who ended up leading you astray. We were wrong in that and deserved the abandonment of the West when we most needed because we had abandoned the West first. So, let's put aside those wrong beliefs the Franks developed and all their later applications and return to Orthodoxy."

 

[elijahmaria]

Has anyone read this book written by Laruent Cleenwerck?  I am currently reading it and to my very limited knowledge of history it seems very unbiased.  Thanks

I've read bits of it on google.  I think he still misses some full understanding of some parts of Catholic teachings but he does a much better job of representing them than I am accustomed to seeing in Orthodox texts or on the Internet so I think it is a pretty fair starting point for continuing dialogue.

M.

 

[theistgal]

Fabio, please note I was not arguing the point, just pointing out why the title of the book need not be interpreted as "blasphemy" per an earlier poster.  K?

 

[Fabio Leite]

Fabio, please note I was not arguing the point, just pointing out why the title of the book need not be interpreted as "blasphemy" per an earlier poster.  K?

I know, sorry. I was just thinking "aloud".

 

[Alveus Lacuna]

This looks good to me.

 

[Irish Hermit]

Has anyone read this book written by Laruent Cleenwerck?  I am currently reading it and to my very limited knowledge of history it seems very unbiased.  Thanks

I've read bits of it on google.  I think he still misses some full understanding of some parts of Catholic teachings but he does a much better job of representing them than I am accustomed to seeing in Orthodox texts or on the Internet so I think it is a pretty fair starting point for continuing dialogue.

M.

The continuing dialogue is a bit of a mess, with the Catholics trying to propagate multiple misconceptions in their understanding of Orthodoxy.

We have Pope Benedict in Rome idiotically insisting that the Orthodox do not regard a second marriage as sacrament.

We have Mary Lanser making out that the Orthodox are OK with abortion.

We have Cardinal Kasper trying to pretend that we have always had a teaching of universal primacy.

It just gets worse.  Please, Catholics, stop misrepresenting Orthodoxy!  You're killing the dialogue.

 

[deusveritasest]

Unbiased?  The title is outright blasphemy.

How so?  Assuming one believes:

a)  the Church is the Body of Christ,

b)  the Schism was the fault of both East and West, and

c)  some form of the Branch Theory (i.e. both churches are still part of the original Body in some way),

it doesn't seem blasphemous.  (I'm not saying I believe all/any of these things, though I might  , but just pointing out, it makes sense in that context.)

I think it would be safe to say that many of us see these assumptions in and of themselves as blasphemy.

 

[theistgal]

And many of you do not.  So which group is correctN

 

[theistgal]

Sorry, that should read "which group is correct?"

 

[elijahmaria]

Has anyone read this book written by Laruent Cleenwerck?  I am currently reading it and to my very limited knowledge of history it seems very unbiased.  Thanks

I've read bits of it on google.  I think he still misses some full understanding of some parts of Catholic teachings but he does a much better job of representing them than I am accustomed to seeing in Orthodox texts or on the Internet so I think it is a pretty fair starting point for continuing dialogue.

M.

The continuing dialogue is a bit of a mess, with the Catholics trying to propagate multiple misconceptions in their understanding of Orthodoxy.

We have Pope Benedict in Rome idiotically insisting that the Orthodox do not regard a second marriage as sacrament.

We have Mary Lanser making out that the Orthodox are OK with abortion.

We have Cardinal Kasper trying to pretend that we have always had a teaching of universal primacy.

It just gets worse.   Please, Catholics, stop misrepresenting Orthodoxy!   You're killing the dialogue.

You had to work really hard at some of this.

Speaking for myself, Mary Lanser made out that many...too many....Orthodox clergy and bishops are willing to make exceptions for particular circumstances where abortion is justified.  Now that is just plain fact. 

Do what you like with the rest of it but at least get what I say straight because I am here to help you out when you miss.

M.

 

[Melodist]

And many of you do not.  So which group is correctN

A is correct. Period. The Church is the Body of Christ.

I don't see B as blasphemous simply because it implies that while one side is correct, the correct side could have failed to act out of love in some instances.

I do see a huge problem with C. RC and EO are two distinct bodies without any official intercommunion on both sides anywhere. While Rome has taken a step towards intercommunion by officially allowing EO to commune, this has not been officially reciprocated by any EO church and for good reason. I honestly hope that the differences get settled, but until then I also think it would be a bad idea to pretend that the major differences just don't matter. And even then, there is disagreement on what constitutes a major difference worth breaking communion over. Anyway my point is that Christ established one Church.

 

[theistgal]

OK, but I was just saying A, B or C are possible viewpoints from which the book title might not be blasphemous (as a poster charged earlier), not that A, B or C is or is not blasphemous.  (BTW, IMHO some folks are a bit too quick in calling others "blasphemers" or "heretics" without looking at their POV, which seems a tad unfair.  But then I'm heterodox so what do I know? )

 

[Irish Hermit]

Has anyone read this book written by Laruent Cleenwerck?  I am currently reading it and to my very limited knowledge of history it seems very unbiased.  Thanks

I've read bits of it on google.  I think he still misses some full understanding of some parts of Catholic teachings but he does a much better job of representing them than I am accustomed to seeing in Orthodox texts or on the Internet so I think it is a pretty fair starting point for continuing dialogue.

M.

The continuing dialogue is a bit of a mess, with the Catholics trying to propagate multiple misconceptions in their understanding of Orthodoxy.

We have Pope Benedict in Rome idiotically insisting that the Orthodox do not regard a second marriage as sacrament.

We have Mary Lanser making out that the Orthodox are OK with abortion.

We have Cardinal Kasper trying to pretend that we have always had a teaching of universal primacy.

It just gets worse.   Please, Catholics, stop misrepresenting Orthodoxy!   You're killing the dialogue.

You had to work really hard at some of this.

No hard work was involved, Mary.  These three things came straight to mind.

Leaving aside your own confusion about Orthodox teaching on abortion, what do we see?

We see two senior figures in the Roman Catholic Church completely at sea over significant Orthodox teaching.

1.  The Pope - floundering and in error about the Orthodox teaching on marriage

2. Cardinal Kasper, just retired head of the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity - clueless about Orthodox ecclesiology.

Where the heck is the dialogue going to go when the Pope and the Cardinal charged with  "Promoting Christian Unity" are floundering?

Does anybody know if Cleenwerck addresses the Vatican's ignorance of Orthodoxy and how it impacts the dialogue?

 

[Irish Hermit]

Cardinal Kasper, as President of the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity, did not seem well qualified for the job!  ;D

There was his scandalous remark, worthy of Robert Taft:  "We are increasingly conscious of the fact that an Orthodox Church does not really exist"

On the face of it, it's a rather unusual lapse in good manners and diplomacy by the President of the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity.  :


Of course, what he probably had in mind and wanted to say was that he wishes that the Orthodox had the same ecclesiological paradigm of "church" as his own does. This would make ecumenical business so much easier if it were so, if we were all moulded in the Roman Catholic mould, if we had a centralised authority in Istanbul to whom the whole Church were obedient.  But the fact is that the "structure" of the Orthodox Church (maybe better to say Churches) is not the same as the Roman Catholic Church.

There is a small essay penned in response to the Cardinal's confusion about Orthodox ecclesiology. I don't know if he has ever seen it but we may pray that his successor in the job has a better understanding of Orthodoxy.

An Orthodox Reply to the Opinion of Cardinal Walter Kasper:
'The Orthodox Church does not really exist.'
http://www.orthodoxengland.btinternet.co.uk/cardinal.htm

 

[NMHS]

Thanks everyone for the thoughts.  I stumbled across this book almost a year ago and I am just starting to get into it.  If anyone gets a chance to read it I would be interested in hearing some different viewpoints on the book.  Thanks

 

[elijahmaria]

Has anyone read this book written by Laruent Cleenwerck?  I am currently reading it and to my very limited knowledge of history it seems very unbiased.  Thanks

I've read bits of it on google.  I think he still misses some full understanding of some parts of Catholic teachings but he does a much better job of representing them than I am accustomed to seeing in Orthodox texts or on the Internet so I think it is a pretty fair starting point for continuing dialogue.

M.

The continuing dialogue is a bit of a mess, with the Catholics trying to propagate multiple misconceptions in their understanding of Orthodoxy.

We have Pope Benedict in Rome idiotically insisting that the Orthodox do not regard a second marriage as sacrament.

We have Mary Lanser making out that the Orthodox are OK with abortion.

We have Cardinal Kasper trying to pretend that we have always had a teaching of universal primacy.

It just gets worse.   Please, Catholics, stop misrepresenting Orthodoxy!   You're killing the dialogue.

You had to work really hard at some of this.

No hard work was involved, Mary.  These three things came straight to mind.

Leaving aside your own confusion about Orthodox teaching on abortion, what do we see?

We see two senior figures in the Roman Catholic Church completely at sea over significant Orthodox teaching.

1.  The Pope - floundering and in error about the Orthodox teaching on marriage

2. Cardinal Kasper, just retired head of the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity - clueless about Orthodox ecclesiology.

Where the heck is the dialogue going to go when the Pope and the Cardinal charged with  "Promoting Christian Unity" are floundering?

Does anybody know if Cleenwerck addresses the Vatican's ignorance of Orthodoxy and how it impacts the dialogue?

Not all Orthodox clergy or hierarchs that I know disagree too terribly much with the Pope concerning second marriages, I have discovered, since you made a big roar about it on Irenikon.  So you are not convincing me with your own disapproval of his comments.  Not all Orthodox priests and bishops hold your views on sex and marriage, and your bishop's views of course.  So I accept that and move on but I see no truth in your making a fuss till universal Orthodoxy gets it all worked out to the satisfaction of all.

Also when did you start having a difficult time with the fact that you and other Orthodox misrepresent the Catholic Church?  You do it often enough and publicly enough that I didn't think it mattered to you.  And I rarely see you correct another Orthodox person concerning Catholic teaching, unless of course it is one of your preferred teachings and you choose to get it right.

I've watched you holler at other Orthodox faithful and clergy over sexual and marital morality issues for over a decade...among other things that annoy you.

Why all of a sudden are you the arbiter of all things Orthodox?

Mary

 

[Wyatt]

Fabio, please note I was not arguing the point, just pointing out why the title of the book need not be interpreted as "blasphemy" per an earlier poster.  K?

Yet, really it is very much blasphemy. It suggests that neither Catholic nor Orthodox hold "the Truth" but only a piece of the truth. This suggests that Christ's own words that "the gates of hell shall not prevail" against the Church is a lie.

 

[Irish Hermit]

Has anyone read this book written by Laruent Cleenwerck?  I am currently reading it and to my very limited knowledge of history it seems very unbiased.  Thanks

I've read bits of it on google.  I think he still misses some full understanding of some parts of Catholic teachings but he does a much better job of representing them than I am accustomed to seeing in Orthodox texts or on the Internet so I think it is a pretty fair starting point for continuing dialogue.

M.

The continuing dialogue is a bit of a mess, with the Catholics trying to propagate multiple misconceptions in their understanding of Orthodoxy.

We have Pope Benedict in Rome idiotically insisting that the Orthodox do not regard a second marriage as sacrament.

We have Mary Lanser making out that the Orthodox are OK with abortion.

We have Cardinal Kasper trying to pretend that we have always had a teaching of universal primacy.

It just gets worse.  Please, Catholics, stop misrepresenting Orthodoxy!  You're killing the dialogue.

You had to work really hard at some of this.

No hard work was involved, Mary.  These three things came straight to mind.

Leaving aside your own confusion about Orthodox teaching on abortion, what do we see?

We see two senior figures in the Roman Catholic Church completely at sea over significant Orthodox teaching.

1.  The Pope - floundering and in error about the Orthodox teaching on marriage

2. Cardinal Kasper, just retired head of the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity - clueless about Orthodox ecclesiology.

Where the heck is the dialogue going to go when the Pope and the Cardinal charged with  "Promoting Christian Unity" are floundering?

Does anybody know if Cleenwerck addresses the Vatican's ignorance of Orthodoxy and how it impacts the dialogue?

Not all Orthodox clergy or hierarchs that I know disagree too terribly much with the Pope concerning second marriages, I have discovered, since you made a big roar about it on Irenikon.

I challenge you to tell us outright that you know Orthodox bishops and priests who deny that a second marriage is a sacrament.    If you are not willing to state that, then please stop misleading the members of this forum by cunningly giving such an impression.

 

[Irish Hermit]

I've watched you holler at other Orthodox faithful and clergy over sexual and marital morality issues for over a decade....

I am flabbergasted!  This is a lie.  I recently spent a couple of months on your e-group at Yahoo! and there I encountered the perverse opinions of a young convert to Orthodoxy, writing of his own virginal state, under the tutelage of Fr Ambrose Young. His attitude to sex and marriage would, in my humble opinion, be sufficient to bring into play, should he ever seek ordination, the canon which forbids the ordination of people with such attitudes to marriage.

You also have a bishop on your group who was perhaps even more dismayed than I was about this young man's attitude to marriage.

 

[Jetavan]

Fabio, please note I was not arguing the point, just pointing out why the title of the book need not be interpreted as "blasphemy" per an earlier poster.  K?

Yet, really it is very much blasphemy. It suggests that neither Catholic nor Orthodox hold "the Truth" but only a piece of the truth. This suggests that Christ's own words that "the gates of hell shall not prevail" against the Church is a lie.

There's always the Oriental.

 

[Wyatt]

Fabio, please note I was not arguing the point, just pointing out why the title of the book need not be interpreted as "blasphemy" per an earlier poster.  K?

Yet, really it is very much blasphemy. It suggests that neither Catholic nor Orthodox hold "the Truth" but only a piece of the truth. This suggests that Christ's own words that "the gates of hell shall not prevail" against the Church is a lie.

There's always the Oriental.

Which is why I didn't say "neither Catholic nor Eastern Orthodox," I said Orthodox which I used as an all encompassing term for Chalcedonian and non-Chalcedonian Orthodox.

 

[Jetavan]

Fabio, please note I was not arguing the point, just pointing out why the title of the book need not be interpreted as "blasphemy" per an earlier poster.  K?

Yet, really it is very much blasphemy. It suggests that neither Catholic nor Orthodox hold "the Truth" but only a piece of the truth. This suggests that Christ's own words that "the gates of hell shall not prevail" against the Church is a lie.

There's always the Oriental.

Which is why I didn't say "neither Catholic nor Eastern Orthodox," I said Orthodox which I used as an all encompassing term for Chalcedonian and non-Chalcedonian Orthodox.

By "non-Chalcedonian" do you include the Assyrian Church of the East?

 

[Alveus Lacuna]

Fabio, please note I was not arguing the point, just pointing out why the title of the book need not be interpreted as "blasphemy" per an earlier poster.  K?

Yet, really it is very much blasphemy. It suggests that neither Catholic nor Orthodox hold "the Truth" but only a piece of the truth. This suggests that Christ's own words that "the gates of hell shall not prevail" against the Church is a lie.

Orthodox are so big on saying that the rock is not St. Peter but rather his confession of faith that Christ is Lord. So if the Church is built on the rock of faith in the Lordship of Christ, then all the text seems to imply is that the confession of Christ's lordship will never die, even until the end of time. How that gets convoluted into meaning a particular hierarchal system will remain unified without error until the end of this age is beyond me.

 

[Wyatt]

By "non-Chalcedonian" do you include the Assyrian Church of the East?

No, I meant Oriental Orthodoxy.

Orthodox are so big on saying that the rock is not St. Peter but rather his confession of faith that Christ is Lord. So if the Church is built on the rock of faith in the Lordship of Christ, then all the text seems to imply is that the confession of Christ's lordship will never die, even until the end of time. How that gets convoluted into meaning a particular hierarchal system will remain unified without error until the end of this age is beyond me.

So you believe that when Christ said that the Gates of Hell shall not prevail against the Church, He was simply saying that the confession of His being Lord will never die? Isn't that a rather Protestant way of thinking, the idea that Jesus is all that matters and that a Church is unnecessary?

 

[deusveritasest]

Fabio, please note I was not arguing the point, just pointing out why the title of the book need not be interpreted as "blasphemy" per an earlier poster.  K?

Yet, really it is very much blasphemy. It suggests that neither Catholic nor Orthodox hold "the Truth" but only a piece of the truth. This suggests that Christ's own words that "the gates of hell shall not prevail" against the Church is a lie.

There's always the Oriental.

Both groups call themselves Orthodox, so unless one is decided that the Orientals are not Orthodox in the same way as the Byzantines, then referring to one as "Orthodox" and the other as "Oriental" is misleading. I don't see why people can't just speak of one as Byzantine and one as Oriental.

 

[deusveritasest]

Fabio, please note I was not arguing the point, just pointing out why the title of the book need not be interpreted as "blasphemy" per an earlier poster.  K?

Yet, really it is very much blasphemy. It suggests that neither Catholic nor Orthodox hold "the Truth" but only a piece of the truth. This suggests that Christ's own words that "the gates of hell shall not prevail" against the Church is a lie.

There's always the Oriental.

Which is why I didn't say "neither Catholic nor Eastern Orthodox," I said Orthodox which I used as an all encompassing term for Chalcedonian and non-Chalcedonian Orthodox.

By "non-Chalcedonian" do you include the Assyrian Church of the East?

The ACE is not non-Chalcedonian in the same sense as the Orientals because it is also non-Ephesine. Furthermore, I don't believe that it is at all common to refer to them as Orthodox.

 

[deusveritasest]

Fabio, please note I was not arguing the point, just pointing out why the title of the book need not be interpreted as "blasphemy" per an earlier poster.  K?

Yet, really it is very much blasphemy. It suggests that neither Catholic nor Orthodox hold "the Truth" but only a piece of the truth. This suggests that Christ's own words that "the gates of hell shall not prevail" against the Church is a lie.

Orthodox are so big on saying that the rock is not St. Peter but rather his confession of faith that Christ is Lord. So if the Church is built on the rock of faith in the Lordship of Christ, then all the text seems to imply is that the confession of Christ's lordship will never die, even until the end of time. How that gets convoluted into meaning a particular hierarchal system will remain unified without error until the end of this age is beyond me.

I don't know where you get the idea that the clause "and the gates of Hades shall never prevail against it" was referring to the rock rather than the Church.

 

[Wyatt]

I don't know where you get the idea that the clause "and the gates of Hades shall never prevail against it" was referring to the rock rather than the Church.

Right. Christ is definitely talking about the Church in this passage. The messy part is that the Eastern Orthodox Church, Roman Catholic Church, Oriental Orthodox Church, and Assyrian Church of the East all trace their roots back to the Apostles and all claim to exclusively be this Church which Christ speaks of. This makes for a difficult situation because the believer has to discern for themselves which one of these Churches is actually the Church.

 

[deusveritasest]

The messy part is that the Eastern Orthodox Church, Roman Catholic Church, Oriental Orthodox Church, and Assyrian Church of the East all trace their roots back to the Apostles and all claim to exclusively be this Church which Christ speaks of.

I don't know about the ACE. I have not yet once heard a member of the ACE claim that they are the Church to the exclusion of the others, whereas I have numerous times with the other three, though not with absolute consistency.

This makes for a difficult situation because the believer has to discern for themselves which one of these Churches is actually the Church.

For sure.

 

[Iconodule]

I suspect the absolute rejection, by some Orthodox, of St. Peter as "the rock" is a modern development. I have seen the passage interpreted as referring to St. Peter by St. Gregory Palamas and Blessed Theophylact... I imagine they're not alone. I doubt any of them thought of this as a support to the Papal claims of supremacy.